"SCO is chafing badly under the propaganda war it's losing to Groklaw," writes Maureen O'Gara, who describes Groklaw as "the pro-IBM Web site that's following its $5 billion case against IBM."

Her controversial report continues:

SCO and its legal A-Team of Boies and Silver want the world to start seeing the case the way they see it and are going to file a motion asking the court to unseal most of the documents that are currently under seal.

What it wants aired are IBM's e-mails, which they think tell a killer story about AIX, Dynix and Project Monterey.

SCO says that by the end of the month it is also going to amend its contract suit against IBM - SCO's suit last time we looked was a contract case although that fact sometimes gets lost - and include the Monterey Project based on evidence that turned up in the discovery that IBM has provided so far.

Near as we can piece together, SCO intends to charge IBM with fraud.

Supposedly sometime in the first half of 2000 IBM made a course correction to Linux and away from Monterey, which was the IBM-SCO-Intel initiative to move AIX to the Itanium, a project that Sequent and Dynix ultimately got bolted on to too. It was, as we recall, supposed to be the (as in THE) mainstream operating system.

However, after IBM decided to back Linux, it supposedly concocted a scheme to put out an Itanium product, then kill it immediately, thinking that if it did that it would trigger some licensing rights - that were allegedly non-existent, according to SCO - to use Monterey code for Power and thereby have a product they could use against Sun.

See, IBM was on Unix System 3 and Sun was on System V and IBM needed to catch up, but, according to SCO, didn't want to pay SCO for it, hence the new charges. Supposedly SCO never knew any of this before it stumbled over it in IBM's discovery.

SCO has also finally decided to set up a site of its own to house all the myriad legal documents the suit has created so people won't have to go to Groklaw and read its anti-SCO philippics.

Meanwhile, on Wednesday District Court Judge Dale Kimball sat through three-and-a-half hours worth of oral arguments on four motions in the SCO-IBM case, the most substantive of which - as near as we can figure out - was IBM's eye-crossing cross-motion for partial summary judgment on its claim for a declaratory judgment of non-infringement.

At the risk of practicing law without a license - and with due reverence for Cravath, Swaine's abilities to move the ball even you're looking plum at it - this motion and its little friends look like one of those red herrings that may fetch IBM a lot of PR yardage, but may not ultimately score a touchdown.

IBM's premise started with asking the court to declare Linux free of any SCO copyright claims. Again near as we can figure out given all the easily misleading legal talk, Cravath, Swaine's boys, IBM's lawyers, modified their position at the hearing the other day and simply asked Judge Kimball to rule that the widgetry IBM contributed to Linux didn't infringe on any claimed SCO copyrights.

Well, now, Cravath, Swaine accomplished that maneuver quite nicely - with help from some stylistic faux pas by SCO's side - and will probably win that round for all we know - but darned if we can remember SCO ever charging IBM with that.

The only copyright charge we remember SCO making has to do with IBM continuing to distribute AIX after SCO claims it pulled its AIX license.

However, if IBM does win its motion, then it - or its factotums - will be able to claim victory and seek to reassure users to keep on buying Linux.

Anyway, Judge Kimball decided to give this and the other three motions he heard a think and postponed his decision. Then he took a stab at ending the discovery deadlock between IBM and SCO - having previously refused to discuss SCO's myriad complaints about IBM's refusing to turn over discovery - and told IBM to turn in its reply to SCO's latest motions trying to shake the CVMC source tree out of IBM by Wednesday, September 22 and told SCO to file its reply to whatever IBM has to say two days later, on September 24. After that, the ball will be in the judge's court.

Maureen O'Gara the most read technology reporter for the past 20 years, is the Cloud Computing and Virtualization News Desk editor of SYS-CON Media. She is the publisher of famous "Billygrams" and the editor-in-chief of "Client/Server News" for more than a decade. One of the most respected technology reporters in the business, Maureen can be reached by email at maureen(at)sys-con.com or paperboy(at)g2news.com, and by phone at 516 759-7025. Twitter: @MaureenOGara

In accordance with our Comment Policy, we encourage comments that are on topic, relevant and to-the-point. We will remove comments that include profanity, personal attacks, racial slurs, threats of violence, or other inappropriate material that violates our Terms and Conditions, and will block users who make repeated violations. We ask all readers to expect diversity of opinion and to treat one another with dignity and respect.

Please wait while we process your request...

Your feedback has been submitted for approval.

Most Recent Comments

Henry Drefeldt10/23/04 01:27:49 PM EDT

I think that in addition to getting a few web developer that knows how to make webpages readable, getting some with enough
knowledge and integrity to make their opinions worth reading.

SPB10/14/04 08:04:12 AM EDT

In my opinion, this is idiotic journalism regurgitated by a sycophant. Why don't you use www.groklaw.net - even if you ignore Pam Jones' comments - and read the actual court filings?

I'm surprised you even put your name to this article. How little price journalists put upon their good character these days? It reminds me of an anecdote where Bernard Shaw once asked a rich woman if she would sleep with him for a million pounds - she replied "Yes". "And for a hundred thousand pounds?" he asked. "Possibly," she replied. "And for ten pounds?" asked Shaw. "Certainly not!" she retorted. "What do you think I am?" "We have already established that," replied Shaw. "We are simply negotiating a price now."

What price journalistic integrity?

Reader10/13/04 06:05:54 PM EDT

Her controversial report continues = Don't believe this crap.

Nnyan10/13/04 05:49:03 PM EDT

As stated in various posts Linuxworld is the armpit of journalism and O'Gara is a paid shill hiding under the term "journalism".

Give her (Enderle, Lyons, etc...) a few bucks and a prepared "Story" and she will spout it out to select media outlets. Give them a few more bucks and they will do a "Study" that reflects the exact numbers you want it to.

Want your product to be 230% faster, cheaper or better then your competitors? Spend the $$$ and they will make it seem almost real.

What a laugh

hrvatska10/13/04 05:31:49 PM EDT

If the case isn't about copyrights, why does SCO's law firms talk so much about non-literal copying? And in support of that assertion, request more discovery. The FACT that IBM has turned the source code to every version of AIX they've released, and SCO is asking for the unreleased developer's code and notes, shows that no matter what Maureen O'Gara says, SCO is basing their claims on copyright infringement. Ms. O'Gara comes across as an uninformed SCO shill.

Steve Turner10/08/04 07:39:19 AM EDT

If you haven't heard SCO going on about copyright infringement, what sort of journalist are you. All they have ever gone on about in every newspaper article and in all courts except the SCO-IBM court is copyright infringement, and you say they haven't raised this yet. You really are a joke. Take your head out of Darl's butt and you may see daylight.

Justin09/21/04 08:23:14 AM EDT

Dear God woman, have you no shame?

Watcher09/21/04 12:14:35 AM EDT

FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTION (Copyright Infringement), paragraphs 173 through 180 (pages 50-52) of SCO's Second Amended Complaint. Paragraph 179 is the direct accusation, if you want to be specific.

If you're "darned if we can remember SCO ever charging IBM with that" then you must have dozed off sometime in the first 50 pages, becuse SCO most definitely *have* charged IBM with that.

They did, in typical SCO fashion, decline to provide specifics other than "IBM's breaches of the IBM Related Agreements and the Sequent Related Agreements and its post-termination actions have infringed, have induced infringement of, and have contributed to the infringement of, copyright registrations of SCO and its predecessors. Such actions have been wilful and have been done with knowledge of the copyright rights of SCO."

Many people, not least of them IBM, would dearly like to know much more specifically what SCO are talking about.

Michael09/20/04 09:08:42 PM EDT

Keep phoning them in, Maureen. God forbid you should actually ever research one of these SCO press releases. Or heavens forbid, check the facts? But that would jeapodize your second job as Darl's publicist.

Offda Wally09/20/04 12:43:09 PM EDT

Thank you, Maureen, for your analysis. It's people like you and Bob Enderle and Kieran O'Shaughnessy (and, of course, Darl himself) that we NEED to hear from OFTEN in order to keep this controversey alive! The way SCO's law firm has been handling the case lately, it's become a bit one-sided, and hence boring and not newsworthy. But with you and your colleagues stirring things up with your diligent reporting at irregular intervals, the media has NEW things to report. This help keep Linux and its ascent on the front page of every IT journal & web site. If it hadn't been for the SCO lawsuit, Linux would probably still be an unknown entity to most CEOs. But all the news generated by stories such as yours helps promote the validation of Open Source in general and Linux in particular. Such exposure would have cost the Open Source movement millions of dollars (that they don't have) for advertising, but you and Bob and your friends continue to provide this service for free.

Thanks, Maureen! Don't let the turkeys get you down. Keep up the great work!

Nicholas Donovan09/20/04 09:54:24 AM EDT

Securities Law 101

SCO wants to Charge IBM with Fraud!???
SCO can not charge anyone or any entity with anything.

Charging of a felony must be done by a DA's office, or in some cases the DA's office with a Grand Jury.

SCO can do nothing but watch the value of its shares sink into oblivion.

Just my opinion,

Nick

--
Not an attorney. The above is not to be construed as legal advice only personal opinion. The author is not responsible for losses incurred to person(s) following the above advice.

DaveF09/19/04 08:27:09 PM EDT

Hack said: "Mr Wallace posts... [t]his time... some *new* drivel."

I stand corrected...

Hack09/19/04 04:16:45 PM EDT

DaveF wrote:

> Mr Wallace posts the same drivel again and again and again.

I beg to differ. This time he posted some *new* drivel. Note how *all* OSI approved licenses are now some kind of a problem, not just the GPL. What can I say, DW never fails to impress :-)

As usual Maureen has only managed to get one side of the story, and seeing as SCO is desparate to get "good" publicity, they went to the one person that they knew would write anything as long as she gets paid. I remember hounding SUSE when the redundacies happened and when she couldn't get an asnwer from PR (or any of the other offices) she made it up! I have and never will rely on any story she has written and I would advise anyone else to do the same.

J

DaveF09/19/04 11:14:58 AM EDT

I see Daniel Wallace is back again, like a dead mouse stuck in the wall the smell of which one finds difficult to exorcise.

Mr Wallace posts the same drivel again and again and again. He has absolutely no credibility because, months ago, in fact years ago, he was shown to be wrong in even the simplest of his assertions and has, to this day, failed to admit it. When pressed, he runs to post the same crap elsewhere. When challenged there, he runs back here in an endless cycle.

Mr Wallace says: "[OSI licenses] are meant to apply to anyone in the public domain who chooses to accept the offered terms. But by attempting to extend the license terms to ANYONE [my emphasis] in the public domain..."

This statement, in itself, shows just how entirely clueless Wallace is. The licenses do not attempt to extend their provisions to absolutely anyone in the public domain, only to those who wish to prepare or distribute derivative works. Those people have, under copyright law, no authority to do so. If they wish to do so, they require the agreement (license) of the copyright holder. By releasing the software under the GPL, the copyright holders have agreed to waive their right to control the preparation of a derivative work IFF the individual preparing that derivative work agrees to similarly licence his portion of that work. Nothing could be simpler or clearer.

Sheesh, why do I even bother? Mr Wallace, you've been through this time and time again. Do you recall when you said that "a simple check with a competent attorney" would prove you right? Then when a distinguished attorney and professor in a renowned law school wrote and said that your position was clearly wrong, you ran and hid under some rock? I challenged you again and again and again to admit that "a simple check with a competent attorney" had failed to prove you right and you refused. Now, you're back. If you're hoping that Eben Moglen will post, this time, that you are right and will bow and worship at your feet, well, hey, I've got an idea, hold your breath until it happens!

Do you remember when you said that the BSD licences were alright because they didn't restrict blahblahblahblahblah. Now you're here saying that all OSI licences are a problem. BSD licences are OSI licences ferchrisake!

I'll repeat Mathfox's challenge, Mr Wallace. If you're so sure that the GPL is unenforceable, take some GPLd code, prepare a derivative and then distribute it under something other than the GPL. Do it! You've been challenged to do that innumerable times and yet you fail to do it. It appears that your certainty in the crap you spout is limited to pontification and that your convictions are only millimetres deep. Until you're prepared to challenge the GPL in a court of law by violating it yourself, why don't you just dry up and roll away? In the absence of that, I'm sick of the same crap again and again.

Please folks, Mr Wallace is entirely clueless. He appears to be suffering from some sort of delusion that only he can clearly interpret copyright law. My advice would be to save your breath and let him slink off to post this crap somewhere else. It's bad enough we have O'Gara as a clueless troll, let's not feed another.

Daniel Wallace you poor understanding of copyrights or a software iicens are very disturbing..

The same laws that govern the copyright license of Mcrosoft govern FOSs software..

what you describe paints both FOSs and MS software udner the saem conditions ie the copyright law and contracts..

MS software is license under multiparty contracts folks..

Paul09/19/04 09:35:04 AM EDT

Troll alert!

No one could be this stupid. O'Gara may be trying to stimulate controversy to boost hits to the sites she writes for. Please do not feed the troll.

Daniel Wallace09/19/04 09:14:53 AM EDT

The FOSS community steadfastly refuses to accept what
the result of the SCO v. IBM case will ultimately
dictate.

The philosophical beliefs and emotional attachment to
the goals of FOSS prevent the FOSS community from
accepting the fact that prevailing law as held by the
various Federal Courts of Appeal will determine FOSS
copyright licensing... not whether SCO is a villian or
IBM a hero (or both).

The most generous (to FOSS goals) holding to be found
in Federal Court interpretation is the ruling by the
Seventh Circuit in ProCD, Inc. v. Zeidenberg, 86 F.3d
1447 (1996):

"Like the Supreme Court in Wolens, we think it prudent
to refrain from adopting a rule that anything with the
label "contract" is necessarily outside the preemption
clause: the variations and possibilities are too
numerous to foresee... But whether a particular license
is generous or restrictive, a simple two party contract
is not "equivalent to any of the exclusive rights
within the general scope of copyright" and therefore
may be enforced."

A simple "two party contract" is not preempted by
Section 301 of the Copyright Act according to the ProCD
Court. But the majority of Federal Circuits reject this
view concerning even "simple two party" contracts
unless an "extra element" is involved". This includes
the Tenth Circuit where the SCO v. IBM case is being
decided.

All OSI approved licenses are "unlimited multiparty
contracts"... they are meant to apply to anyone in the
public domain who chooses to accept the offered terms.
But by attempting to extend the license terms to anyone
in the public domain the license simply becomes a way
to regulate rights granted in Section 106 of The
Copyright Act against any stranger who happens along.

The license says here's our copyrighted work... accept
our license or you're an infringer. This is the very
authority Congress reserved when writing the Copyright
Act... universal copyright enforcement against
strangers.

The Federal Courts will NEVER accept these licensing
schemes that involve "unlimited multiparty contracts".
They will be viewed as nothing more than universal
regulation schemes.

Linux is soon to be the domain of Corporate America and
commercial licensing. FOSS developers' dreams can
adjust to this fact or perish in preemption.

I would like to point out some points that highlight Maureen's true intentions:

1. Since Maureen is so concern with regurgitating SCo's pr I asked several week saog to specifically name the coument and paragraphs in discovery that back up SCO's point that she restated...Note: SCO has ye tot do any depositions so I already knew the naswer before asking..her answer was to not answer at all..I will soon post the meail with her permission on my blog..

2. SCO has yet do any depositions in a case that is over almost 2 years old...

3. SCO's pr always contradicts what SCO states in court and they have this pattern for over 2 years..

I fully believe that Maureen ha been pressued by an advertiser of LinuxWorld or sys-con to avoid asking any questions borne by facts or to state any facts that contradict SCO's pr releases..

I think we need to group together and find the advertiser that is ordering this and expose them to the light of Linxu enlightenment..

flimbag09/19/04 07:49:11 AM EDT

You know, I'd be only too happy to read the court documents on SCO's website, because it would give me enormous pleasure to watch those super-sweet legal minds at Cravath, Swaine and Moore beating the living daylights out of those overpriced legal dunces who are representing SCO on bandwidth that was actually paid for by SCO.

SCO can whine all they want to about getting their side of the story across, but the *real* story -- as anyone who reads Groklaw knows -- is in the court filings.

Of course, I don't believe for a moment this will happen. The last thing SCO wants is for the media and their investors to be reading *all* of Cravath, Swaine and Moore's filings and *all* of the supplementary documentation. If people did that, they wouldn't be able to write the sort of ludicrous stories that Maureen has written here today.

Hack09/19/04 03:03:17 AM EDT

I can hardly wait! Will those sealed documents also include the "millions of line of infringing code"? You really crack me up Maureen.

Do you really think readers of *Linux*World would care what IBM and old SCO did or didn't do in regards to Monterey? How exactly does that affect Linux, once IBM PSJ on non-infringement, as well as CC10 on infringement by SCO goes through? Do you know anything about this case at all?

Keep up the good work on the comedy column ;-)

No dice09/18/04 10:20:33 PM EDT

The continued level of misinterpretation, blind regurgitation, and complete falsehoods in O'Gara's work must be thrilling to LinuxWorld.

Despite what O'Gara claims, SCO did in fact accuse IBM of contravening its copyrights before they started wanted to bury those claims in a blizzard of filings related to contracts. I'm sure if anyone was willing to drag themselves through her earlier stories, they'd probably find her mentioning it. A thankless task, to be sure.

By the way, O'Gara: SCO cannot "charge" IBM with fraud. That's a criminal charge. Either SCO have private delusions of being in law enforcement, or - as usual - your reporting and conclusions both stink like a week-old litterbox.

be2weenthelines09/18/04 10:00:09 PM EDT

I don't know which is more embarassing. Being the author of such a distorted piece of nonsense or being its publisher. The court filings are there for anyone to read. Don't take Groklaw's word for the weakness of SCO's case and the reprehensibility of their conduct. Don't take the word of a hack journalist spouting SCO propaganda. Read them for yourseelf and make up your own mind.

Mark09/18/04 07:26:17 PM EDT

One of the most amaturish articles I've ever seen.

Gotta be kidding me...09/18/04 06:46:25 PM EDT

Didn't SCO make simular allegations regarding IBM and ELF, that never materialized. Maureen seems to miss the obvious questions and just repeats SCO's drivel (perhaps why Maureen is always first during SCO conference calls to be called for questions). If SCO had reason to sue IBM over Monterey, they'd sue over Monterey rather than Linux. Just as if, they owned SYS V copyrights they'd sue over that, NOT slander of title.

Whats even worse than the reporting (Maureen has gone to the Journalism school of Dan Rather?) is your website displayed the entire story with a margin that showed on average 3 characters per line.

alec cormack09/18/04 06:05:01 PM EDT

shame on you.

If you have genuinely been deceived I trust you will apologise for this when the scoundrels go to jail.

I encourage anybody that reads the O'Gara article and is disgusted with the quality of the facts or writing to immediiately pick one of the sponsors appearing on this page and ask them if the article is what they wanted when they spent their hard earned advertising dollars at this site.

I forgot to write that SCO does *not* publish "all" the legal documents. They only publish a tiny selection of the documents. They do not publish the most devastating documents such as the declarations of MIT expert Randall Davis.

But SCO illegally publishes a *sealed* document, the "MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF SCO’S EXPEDITED MOTION TO ENFORCE THE COURT’S AMENDED SCHEDULING ORDER DATED JUNE 10, 2004". Maybe reports about that action were misunderstood by Maureen O'Gara.

The editors should retract that article and publish an apology to the readers.

Andreas Kuckartz09/18/04 03:23:17 PM EDT

Maureen O'Gara wrote: "SCO has also finally decided to set up a site of its own to house all the myriad legal documents the suit has created ..."

This is clueless bullshit. SCO has set up that website *ages* ago.

Also there obviously are people involved in the lawsuit who commit fraud - but they do not seem to be on the side of IBM...

Steve09/18/04 03:14:00 PM EDT

SCO can't "charge" IBM with fraud much less anything else. Criminal charges are reserved for the government.

Niccolo09/18/04 03:04:24 PM EDT

Pardon me for being stupid but......
In between a couple of quickly available articles by Ms. O'Gara regarding SCO v IBM, every response appears to reinforce one notion - taken as a cumulative effect - Ms. O'Gara isn't fit to draw breath. Not most or even a vast majority of them. Every single one.
This is curious.
Curious in that it's on-going. Te editor is certainly aware that Maureen's expectency of Christmas card reception has been severly curtailed. Yet there she be. Again. The editor cares only about clicks/money, nothing else. O'Gara, likewise, cares only for clicks/money. That's not a statement of character or judgement just a business 'as is'.
Now being that indepth subject knowledge and journalistic integrity are not high on the list of "The Reasons I Read Mo'" It comes down to a scam don't you think? It's not a terrible one, but she's entertainment, plain and simple. And she's well aware of it. So is the editor.
I don't really know what this case is about in terms of software or computers but I know it's a fools move for anyone to compare the SCO A Team of BF&S, who know squat about IP law, to CS&M, who know enough to bring them to their knees. They are IBM's big guns of choice when it's to to litigate. The way she refers to them indicates a deference born of ignorance. She remembers that BF&S defeated MS, a software giant, but forgets they were in court on charges of violating Sherman Antitrust laws. These folks at CS&M redefine heavy duty. On casual dress friday they wear pinstripes on their black suits. I've seem them work. Very ugly. Not only do they routinely wipe the floor with the other side, they have no eyes. Just black spaces; having no soul in a mataphysical sort of way. Maybe it's part of their job description. There isn't a Matlock among them.

The nicest thing I can say about your article is that it is Grossly Inaccurate!

You are a poor researcher and you display an amazing lack of understanding of even the most rudimentary facts concerning The SCO Group (aka Caldera), copyright law and contract law.

I am sorry to say this but your ability to accurately report on anything related to this case is practically zero.

Perhaps you should apply for some work at Forbes or some other nonsense rag - we have no need for you kind of ineptitude.

Bar

Mike Schwager09/18/04 01:46:58 PM EDT

I guess LinuxWorld thinks they need someone like Maureen to present a "balanced" view, but it's a shame they have to stoop so low to do so. The few articles I have read of hers are full of ignorance and wild flights of fantasy. How odd...

ccs09/18/04 01:46:54 PM EDT

Just another correction of facts to this deplorable article.
It seems you really don't (want to?) know what you are writing about.

[quote]
"See, IBM was on Unix System 3 and Sun was on System V and IBM needed to catch up, but, according to SCO, didn't want to pay SCO for it, hence the new charges."
[/quote]

System III (not 3) was released october 1981.
System V was released december 1982.
The licence agreement between IBM and AT&T is from 1985.
Why should IBM licence something which was obsolete at that time?
What you possibly(?) mean is System V Release 3 versus System V Release 4. So you change something like program A version 5.3 to version 5.4 into something like program A version 3.0 to version 5.0 (intentionaly?)

Any how just read the declaration od Otis Wilson, sworn under penalty of perjury (wouldn't it be nice of you to do the same :) ), responsable for Unix licenses in AT&T, in which he clearly states it was System V IBM licensed.

Or just read the License Agreement, which is part of the case docket.

BPS09/18/04 01:34:08 PM EDT

Maureen,

SCO/Calderra can charge IBM with anything they like, but there are a few things to consider:

1) The charged them with copyright violations, then withdrew those charges

2) They provided afidavits from "Experts", then had to backtrack and reclassify them as "opinions of laymen"

3) They are demanding all versions of AIX/DYNIX code, and are claiming the court ordered it. When in reality the court said they could REQUEST more code, but the request must be approved by the court, after SCO supplied compelling reason.

etc. etc. etc

Do you really expect the world to hold their breath waiting for SCO to produce e-mails that they most likely will spin so hard it makes the recent hurricane season look tame?

Maureen, you are a shill, a lauging stock, and the last person on earth I would look to for journalistic reporting.

Pammela Jones of Groklaw fame, on the other hand has more journalistic integrity than you could ever hope to dream of.

How much does SCO pay you anyway? It's not enough, really.

CourterColo09/18/04 01:27:34 PM EDT

M.O'Gara & editor(s):

If you're going to post a raving edict from the SCO Group, at least have the journalistic integrity to state that you are quoting them directly. Grammatically this is obviously not crafted by Ms. O'Gara. Stylistically this wouldn't qualify for a passing grade. Factually this is empty; any investigative reporting professor wouldn't give it recognition by putting a grade on it. And while I may not agree with the author's point of view, she has shown that she has a notably better command of writing than whoever put this diatribe-posing-as-journalism together.

Regardless, a few facts that are noticably skewed:

- Groklaw is not a 'pro-IBM' website. It is a pro-GPL, pro-OpenSource website. Groklaw's principle author would have reported on this whether it was IBM, HP, or even Sun.

- Groklaw isn't the thorn in the SCO Group's side. It is just the most visible of many community websites that cover the legal issues surrounding SCOG vs IBM. The community has a vested interest in the GPL, and the contradictory rhetoric from the SCO Group's management has contributed to putting many of them on the opposite side.

- David Boies does not represent the SCO Group. His name has not appeared on a legal document in nearly a year. He has never shown himself as counsel in a courtroom in any of the cases the SCO Group is embroiled in. Boies' firm was hired for it's name value in attempting to coerce companies into not questioning the SCO Group's interpretations of it's contracts.

- The court filings and documents tell the story of the cases. Analyst Dion Cornette published a list of half a dozen IP law professionals who do not agree with the view of the SCO Group's management on the facts and value of the evidence. To date no IP law professional has stepped forward to support the SCO Group's claims with supporting case law.

- There are serious questions of accountability with regards to the lawsuits. The recent SEC filings indicate that the SCO Group has spent in excess of $17 million, and has forced a cap at $31 million on legal costs. Yet the court filings indicate that the SCO Group has not deposed witnesses to support it's claims, and has not paid any third parties to perform expert analysis. If this is the case, where has all of this money gone? Additionally, if third party experts are not doing the code analysis for the SCO Group as required by the court, then who is examining their code? If it is SCO Group employees, then the SCO Group has created an automatic injunction with the strong likelihood of substantial additional counter claims from IBM and sanctions from the court.

- The entire point of motion practice at this stage of a trial is defining the scope of what the trial will cover. It is not only expected, it is a requirement. The fact that the SCO Group's management finds these actions to be reprehensible shows they have either a frightening lack of understanding of the legal system, or zero expectations of their legal team. Every day there are literally thousands of motions and findings around the country. 99.9% of those do not generate the tons of PR that the SCO Group seems to throw at any given motion.

I'll toss the challenge again. Why don't you gather the court filings, sit down with your legal counsel, and have them review the filings. Get the position of a legal expert. Then start asking questions of the SCO Group & IBM based on the facts the court has seen. You claim to be a journalist, prove it to the world by investigating and reporting facts. If for no other reason, than the SCO Group's scoops are going to end frighteningly soon for no other reason than their inept legal representation.

GreyGeek09/18/04 01:12:49 PM EDT

LinuxWorld - PLEASE!!

You should require some credibility and integrity from the writers you publish. They should at least be required to demonstrate a fundamental knowledge of the basic facts of events they on, not merely re-word a PR or rephrase a CEO's statements. Otherwise the article should be clearly labled as an Opinion piece with no claim of factuality.

What kind of crap is this story? SCO was and is the one publicly posturing - they lost a war they started. SCO is the one offering SCOSource licenses - despite the fact they can't prove a single line of SysV in Linux, and despite the fact that SCOSource violates the GPL.

SCO may have valid points in the end but they will be so minor and minute when compared to the public claims SCO has voiced that it will be for naught. SCO's actual problems are being lost in the pure feces that Darl McBride and his cronies spout in every interview.

Anyway, I think Maureen is going to have a few things to explain to IBM's lawyers if she keeps posturing as she does. Indeed, press freedom is not the same think as slander...

Come on Maureen, try again... You see, I really want you to share your insight with the court. I am sure some lawyers would have veeery interesting questions to ask you...

Bill Fuller09/18/04 12:29:19 PM EDT

This story is good for a laugh, but not much else. SCO has been making wild claims in the press, and showing nothing in court except the ability to change the charges, and delay cases indefinitly. They haven't proven anything except that they could pump their stock price, and dump shares like crazy. Try reading the court documents instead of SCO press releases. The case against IBM is a loser, which will cause SCO to implode.

Bill Hogan09/18/04 11:53:53 AM EDT

"people won't have to go to Groklaw and read its anti-SCO philippics." Yeah - those Groklaw bastards, posting SCO's own legal filings and briefs, and cruelly pointing out facts. Come on O'Gara, those losers at SCO are grasping at straws. Don't try to paint it as some grand strategy.

Trithemius09/18/04 11:37:34 AM EDT

Yow, this is great. SCO alread has their propaganda site: It's their PR page at http://www.sco.com - what else do they need? They have their leaky and sometimes breathtakingly inept "press releases".

Yup, LinuxWorld.com - an organ for idiots and morons that have figured out little more than how to project their voices...

lpbbear09/18/04 11:32:09 AM EDT

What crap!

TJ09/18/04 11:31:46 AM EDT

Reading O'Gara is like reading the old Pravda from the "People's Republic".

Rakshat09/18/04 11:31:02 AM EDT

How can you call groklaw pro IBM when anyone is free to post there? And the court documents are public anyway and now avaliable on many sites apart from Groklaw. And let us wait for the charges to be made as what SCO tells the press and the court are very different things. Remember the rocket scientists and the suitcase of proof? I think you are just lowering your credibility by reporting this before anything happens.